U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s recent comments about potentially using military force to gain control of Greenland have ignited a wave of controversy, drawing sharp opposition from European leaders and raising significant concerns about the future of U.S.-European relations.
During a press conference at his Mar-a-Lago estate, Trump suggested he would not rule out using military or economic action, including imposing high tariffs on Denmark, to acquire Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark. This statement quickly elicited strong condemnation from Danish officials. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen emphatically rejected Trump’s remarks, asserting that “Greenland’s future must be decided in Nuuk,” referring to the territory’s capital. Her sentiment was echoed by Greenland’s Prime Minister Mute Egede, who reiterated that “Greenland belongs to Greenlanders,” rejecting any external influence or offer of acquisition.
The response was not limited to Denmark. Greenland’s major political parties, including the ruling Inuit Ataqatigiit and Siumut, voiced their strong disapproval. Mariane Paviasen, spokesperson for the Inuit Ataqatigiit party, bluntly stated, “We do not want to be part of the United States,” while Erik Jensen of the Siumut party emphasized Greenland’s aspiration for self-governance. Opposition leader Pele Broberg added, “Greenland is not a commodity to be traded.”
The controversy also reverberated across Europe, with leaders from the European Union condemning Trump’s stance. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz reaffirmed that the inviolability of borders is “fundamental international law,” while French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot cautioned against Trump’s assertions, highlighting Greenland’s status as a territory of both Denmark and the EU. Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store called the remarks “unacceptable” and warned of the potential destabilizing impact on NATO unity.
Robert Frank, a Croatian political analyst, observed that Trump’s rhetoric reflects a broader pattern of U.S. unilateralism, which clashes with European values of multilateral cooperation and respect for sovereignty. He warned that such rhetoric could severely strain U.S.-EU relations, with Europe growing increasingly wary of Washington’s willingness to disregard European interests in favor of “America First.”
As Greenland becomes more strategically significant due to its rich natural resources and its location in the Arctic, the dispute highlights growing divides between the U.S. and its European allies. Experts suggest that Trump’s approach could widen these divisions, with long-term consequences for global diplomacy. According to Frank, the U.S.-EU divide may deepen further under Trump’s presidency, posing a growing challenge to European stability and unity.
Francois Heisbourg, special advisor at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, warned that if the U.S. continues to prioritize unilateral action, Europe might start distancing itself from American influence. Heisbourg emphasized that without America, traditional alliances formed post-World War II could unravel, creating a more fragmented global order.
The growing concerns over Greenland’s sovereignty also shed light on the strategic and military vulnerabilities faced by Denmark and other European nations. Danish political scientist Kristian Soby Kristensen pointed out that Denmark, with limited military resources, is unable to defend Greenland independently. He noted that Denmark’s armed forces are focused on peacetime activities and lack the capability to resist a potential U.S. military presence on the island.
In the face of Trump’s transactional diplomacy, European leaders are grappling with the delicate balance of maintaining cooperation with the U.S. while asserting their strategic independence. As Trump’s remarks continue to resonate across the Atlantic, the future of transatlantic relations looks increasingly uncertain.
